Time for new hash standard

[Hal Finney]

Bruce Schneier wrote:
>  Luckily, there are alternatives. The National Institute of Standards and
> Technology already has standards for longer - and harder to break - hash
> functions: SHA-224, SHA-256, SHA-384, and SHA-512. They're already
> government standards, and can already be used. This is a good stopgap, but
> I'd like to see more.

Russell Nelson suggested:
> http://cr.yp.to/antiforgery.html#hash127

I believe this is a MAC, despite the name.  It seems to be easier to
create secure MACs than secure hash functions, perhaps because there are
no secrets in a hash, while in a MAC there is a secret key that makes
the attacker's job harder.

Hal

---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at metzdowd.com